On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 2:29 PM, Jason Dusek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Lennart Augustsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> But (a) is not a lifted version of a, whereas (a,b) is a lifted >> version of the a b product. >> So it's not consistent, and thereby wrong. > > Well, we can't represent the unlifted product in Haskell, > right? You have to use some constructor. So if we just say we > are using tuples to represent unlifted products, what's so bad > about that? >
Unless I'm confused, unboxed tuples represent unlifted products. In a sense this is "[using] some constructor", but in a sense not, since an unboxed tuple constructor has no runtime representation. > The last two messages in this thread suggests this has more to > do with the internals of Haskell than they do with consistent > semantics -- so I am perhaps missing the point. I think most Haskellers try their best to keep the first subservient to the second. Cheers, Tim -- Tim Chevalier * http://cs.pdx.edu/~tjc * Often in error, never in doubt "If you don't understand the causes, it is impossible to come up with a solution." -- Joe Biden _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
